Due to
deficiencies in the original Complaint (ECF No. 4), the court
issued an order (ECF No. 20) instructing Mr. Donaldson to
file an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 22.) After filing the
Amended Complaint, Mr. Donaldson filed an Affidavit (ECF No.
24) and eight exhibits. (ECF Nos. 24-1-24-8.) After reviewing
all relevant materials, the court finds that Mr.
Donaldson's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22) is frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and DISMISSES it with
prejudice.

RELEVANT
FACTS

Sometime
in August or September of 2012, Kevin Day (Day) lent his
truck to Mr. Donaldson. (ECF Nos. 24-1; 24-3 at 2.) “On
or about December 31, 2012, ” Mr. Donaldson robbed a
bank in Jackson, Wyoming. (ECF. No. 24-8 at 1.) Mr. Donaldson
used the truck during this robbery. (See ECF No.
24-3 at 2.)

On
January 17, 2013, the Syracuse Police telephoned Day. (ECF
No. 24-8 at 1.) Day told the Syracuse Police that he had
loaned the truck to Mr. Donaldson. (ECF No. 24-8 at 1.) On
January 18, 2013, the Syracuse Police met Day in person. (ECF
No. 24-3 at 2). Day told the Syracuse Police that Mr.
Donaldson never returned the truck, and had threatened Day to
not report the truck stolen. (ECF No. 24-3 at 2.) Later that
day, Clinton City Police Sergeant Stoker (Stoker) visited Day
at his residence. (ECF No. 24-3 at 2.) Day gave Stoker emails
that Mr. Donaldson had written to Day. (ECF NO. 24-3 at 2.)
The emails indicated that Mr. Donaldson had no intention of
returning the truck to Day. (ECF NO. 24-3 at 2.)
Additionally, the emails insinuated threats to Day's
family. (ECF No. 24-3 at 2). And the emails instructed Day to
not report the truck stolen. (ECF NO. 24-3 at 2.)

On
January 22, 2013, Stoker interviewed Mr. Donaldson in person.
Mr. Donaldson told Stoker that Day had lent him the truck.
(ECF NO. 24-3 at 4.) He also told Stoker that he had
“retained possession of the vehicle until approximately
three weeks ago.” (ECF NO. 24-3 at 24.) Additionally,
he told Stoker that he had left the truck in a parking garage
in Sacramento, California. (ECF NO. 24-3 at 4.) Mr. Donaldson
admitted to having asked Day to not report the truck stolen,
but denied doing anything that would cause Day to feel
threatened. (ECF NO. 24-3 at 4.) Mr. Donaldson also told
Stoker that he had left $8, 000 under Day's door mat, and
had left a voicemail for Day informing him that the money was
for the truck. (ECF NO. 24-3 at 4; ECF NO. 24-8 at 5.)

On
January 23, 2013, Stoker again interviewed Day. Day
maintained that Mr. Donaldson “was not welcome to be in
possession of” his truck. (ECF NO. 24-3 at 5.) And Day
told Stoker that “there was no agreement or arrangement
. . . made between [Mr. Donaldson and Day] to the
contrary.” (ECF NO. 24-3 at 5.) Day also maintained
that he felt threatened and feared for his safety and the
safety of his family. (ECF NO. 24-3 at 5.) Stoker mentioned
to Day that Mr. Donaldson had claimed he had “left a
large sum of money from the bank robbery under”
Day's doormat for the truck. (ECF NO. 24-3 at 5.) The
interview ended because Day said he had to pick up his
children. (ECF NO. 24-3 at 5.)

The
next day, on January 24, 2013, Day's attorney contacted
Stoker. (ECF NO. 24-3 at 5.) The attorney told Stoker that
Day had found $8, 000 under his doormat. (ECF NO. 24-3 at 5.)
But the attorney told Stoker that Day did not know
“where or who the money was from.” (ECF NO. 24-3
at 5.) Additionally, the attorney told Stoker that Day
“was not contacted by Mr. Donaldson about the
money.” (ECF NO. 24-3 at 5.) The attorney also told
Stoker that Day was “interested in pursuing criminal
charges regarding the vehicle.” (ECF NO. 24-3 at 5.)

On
February 14, 2013, Stoker executed a Declaration for Warrant
of Arrest. In this Declaration, he provided the following:

[i]n September 2012, [Day] lent his truck to [Mr. Donaldson.]
[Mr. Donaldson] refused to return the [truck] and threatened
[Day] to not report it stolen. After several months, [Mr.
Donaldson] was apprehended and admitted that he took the
[truck], did not return it, and left it in a parking garage
in California.

(ECF NO. 24-1.) The state court appears to have issued an
arrest warrant on February 15, 2013. (See ECF NO.
24-6.)

On
April 30, 2013, at Mr. Donaldson's bank robbery trial,
Day provided testimony that contradicted what he had
previously told Stoker (through his attorney) on January 24,
2013. Day testified that he had received two voicemails from
Mr. Donaldson near New Year's Eve of 2012. (ECF NO. 24-4
at 5.) Day admitted that Mr. Donaldson's first voicemail
instructed Day to “check under [his] mat” because
“there was something under there to take care of the
truck.” (ECF NO. 24-4 at 5.) Day testified that Mr.
Donaldson's second voicemail informed him that the money
under the doormat was not from Mr. Donaldson. (ECF NO. 24-at
5.) But Day's testimony also confirmed what Day had
previously told Stoker about being scared of Mr. Donaldson.
(ECF NO. 24-8 at 7.) (When Mr. Donaldson asked Day “you
mentioned when you spoke to Todd that you were frightened
when I arrived at your house, ” Day replied
“yes.”)

Mr.
Donaldson was found guilty of bank robbery and sentenced. Mr.
Donaldson alleges that while he was in federal custody, the
Utah state court issued an order to law enforcement directing
them to transport him from a federal facility in Georgia to
appear before the Utah state court for the auto theft charge.
(ECF NO. 24-5.) Mr. Donaldson was transported from Georgia to
Utah near November ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.